List of Figures
Figure A1
Layout of Typical Signalized Intersections
Figure A2
Risky Behaviors: Riding in Motorized Lanes and Riding against the Traffic
Figure A3
Risky Behavior: Stopping beyond the Stop Line
List of Tables
Table A1
Selected Signalized Intersections for Field Data Collection
Table A2
Comparison of Different Risky Behaviors for E-bike, E-scooter and Bicycle
Riders
Table A3
Comparison of the Risky Behaviors for Different Rider Groups
Table A4
The Frequency of Each Category of Binary Dependent Variable
Table A5
Descriptive Statistics of Candidate Explanatory Variables
Table A6
Results of the Overall Binary Logit Model
Figure A1
Layout of Typical Signalized Intersections
Figure A2 Risky Behaviors: Riding in Motorized Lanes and Riding against the Traffic
Figure A3 Risky Behavior: Stopping beyond the Stop Line
Table A1. Selected Signalized Intersections for Field Data Collection
Monitored
Site
Pedestrian
width
signals
(m)
type
Signal
Intersection
road
Roadway
phases
1
Baiyun Rd.&Wanhong Rd.
Wanhong Rd.
3
17
Flashing
2
Baiyun Rd.&Xinxing Rd.
Xinxing Rd
2
25
Flashing
3
Huancheng Rd.&Ankang Rd.
Ankang Rd
3
36
Flashing
4
Jiaolin Rd.& Honglin Rd.
Jiaolin Rd
3
20
Flashing
5
Jinhuapu Rd. & Danxa Rd.
Danxa Rd
2
20
Flashing
Xinying Rd
3
35
Flashing
Eastrenming Rd. & Xinying
6
Rd.
7
Xiaokang Rd.&Hongyuan Rd.
Hongyuan Rd
3
25
Flashing
8
Jinse Rd.&Jinquan Rd.
Jinquan Rd
2
30
Flashing
9
Kunrui Rd.&Hongshan Rd.
Hongshan Rd
3
35
Flashing
10
121 Rd.&Minyuan Rd.
Minyuan Rd
2
20
Flashing
Zhujiang Rd
4
40
Countdown
4
35
Countdown
2
30
Countdown
Northtaiping Rd.&Zhujiang
11
Rd.
Northtaiping Rd.&Changjiang
Changjiang
Rd.
Rd
Dashiqiao Rd.&Danfeng Rd.
Dashiqiao Rd
12
13
Table A2 Comparison of Different Risky Behaviors for E-bike, E-scooter and Bicycle Riders
Χ2-value for multiple groups
Type
Χ2-value for
Risky behavior
E-
E-bike
vs
e- E-bike
vs E-scooter
Bicycle three groups
E-bike
scooter
scooter
bicycle
bicycle
0.270(0.603)
0.305(0.581)
2.547(0.111)
Stop beyond the stop
19.78% 20.18%
18.75% 2.594(0.273)
0.79%
3.01%
1.62%
18.100(<0.001) 10.388(0.001)
2.112(0.146)
9.382(0.002)
0.32%
1.38%
0.19%
20.259(<0.001) 5.251(0.022)
0.308(0.329)b
15.804(<0.001)
0.266(0.606)
9.072(0.003)
line
Riding in motorized
lanes
Riding
against
the
traffic
Overalla
20.89% 23.68%
19.91% 10.114(0.006)
2.390(0.122)
Note: shaded areas are statistically significant findings.
a
Overall is the proportion of overall risky behaviors displayed by a particular type of two-wheeled vehicle riders.
b
Fisher’s Exact test is applied in this group.
vs
Table A3. Comparison of the Risky Behaviors for Different Rider Groups
Χ2-value for multiple groups
Type
Χ2-value for
Category
EE-bike
Bicycle
E-bike vs e-
E-bike vs
E-scooter vs
scooter
bicycle
bicycle
three groups
scooter
Male
21.05%
24.28%
22.90%
2.704(0.259)
2.228(0.136)
0.598(0.439)
0.817(0.366)
Female
20.51%
19.48%
14.44%
6.134(0.047)
0.095(0.758)
3.934(0.047)
4.719(0.030)
Young
31.15%
34.46%
28.18%
7.568(0.023)
0.284(0.594)
0.241(0.624)
7.517(0.006)
0.264(0.697)
9.020(0.003)
19.372(<0.001)
1.579(0.228)a
16.581(<0.001)a
13.332(<0.001)
Gender
MiddleAge
aged
19.492(<0.001
19.31%
20.29%
13.27%
)
24.126(<0.001
Older
21.64%
31.29%
8.61%
Note: Shaded areas are statistically significant findings.
a
Fisher’s Exact test is applied in these groups.
)
Table A4 The Frequency of Each Category of Binary Dependent Variable
NonCategory
Occurrence
Overall
occurrence
Risky behavior
1385
4784
6169
Stop beyond the stop line
1221
4784
6005
Riding in motorized lanes
149
4784
4733
Riding against the traffic
62
4784
4846
Table A5 Descriptive Statistics of Candidate Explanatory Variables
Variable
Min.
Max.
Mean
Std.a
Frequency
4929
1 (Male)
(79.9%)
Gender
0
1
0.799
0.401
1240
0 (Female)
(20.1%)
1975
1 (Young, <25)
(32.0%)
Age
0
2
1.495
0.659
3625
2 (Middle-aged, 25~60)
(58.8%)
0 (Older, >60)
569 (9.2)%
1 (E-bike)
632 (10.2)%
3990
Vehicle
2 (E-scooter)
0
2
1.396
0.861
(64.7%)
type
1547
0 (Bicycle)
(25.1%)
0 (Vehicles number <
2523
5)
(40.9%)
1 (Vehicles number
Group size
Peak
1381
0
2
0.958
0.880
5~10)
(22.4%)
2 (Vehicles number >
2265
10)
(36.7%)
1 (Morning)
0
1
0.500
0.500
3087
period
(50.0%)
0 (Afternoon)
3082
(50.0%)
1137
Pedestrian
1 (Countdown)
(18.4%)
signals
0
1
0.184
0.388
5032
type
0 (Flashing)
(81.6%)
Roadway width (m)
17
40
27.648
7.292
6169
Volume of two-wheelers in 5 min
4
171
67.935
37.38
6169
Conflicting traffic volume in 5 min
9
206
79.866
34.587
6169
Note: aStd. represents the standard deviation of each candidate variable.
Table A6. Results of the Overall Binary Logit Model
Coefficien
PS.E.a
Variable
t
Constant
Gender
OR
Young vs older
ORb
value
0.23
<0.00
3
1
0.08
<0.00
1.56
9
1
0
0.14
<0.00
4.00
-2.654
Male vs Female
95% C.I. for
--
0.445
--
1.311~1.857
1.387
3.031~5.284
2
1
2
0.14
<0.00
2.17
Age
Middle-aged vs older
0.779
Vehicle
E-scooter vs bicycle
1.654~2.870
1
1
9
0.08
<0.00
1.60
0.471
type
Group size 2 vs Group
1.366~1.879
1
1
2
0.09
<0.00
1.70
0.533
Group
size 1
size
Group size 3 vs Group
1.426~2.035
1
0.10
0.251
size 1
Conflicting traffic volume in 5 min
Cox & Snell R2
4
1.28
0.014
2
0.00
Volume of two-wheelers in 5 min
1
1.053~1.570
6
<0.00
1.01
0.010
1.008~1.013
1
1
1
0.00
<0.00
0.98
2
1
4
-0.016
0.981~0.987
0.212
--
2
Nagelkerke R
0.271
Note: aS.E. represents the standard error of each variable.
b
95% C.I. for OR represents the confidence interval of each OR value at 95% confident
level.